June 22, 2013

The low quality of these supposed experts was discussed here, last May. Quoting TalkLeft, who found this statement "laugh-out-loud funny":

[A]pproximately one second after the start of CALL3, Mr. Zimmerman makes a seemingly religious proclamation, "These shall be." His speech is characterized by the low pitch and exaggerated pitch contour reminiscent of an evangelical preacher or carnival barker....

194 comments:

Turned on NPR the other day, and caught the middle part of a story on this case. They were saying how experts had proven that it was Martin's voice screaming. Made it sound very conclusive and official.

That ruling squashed the state's slim chance of a guilty verdict for something - maybe of some sort of lesser included offense, assuming Florida law provides that option. Now, the result either will be not guilty or a hung jury. We'll see what happens then.

Maybe our president then can share with us his anguish at his son's murdered going unpunished.

"Based on the many analyses carried out, the undersigned had to conclude that, while there is evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin made the first two calls/cries (Nos. 1 and 8) and that Mr. Zimmerman made those identified as 14 and 16, none of these conclusions reached the criterion for a match. Neither speaker could be identified as being responsible for the others.

...While the evidence suggests that Mr. Martin produced the first two utterances and Mr. Zimmerman made the last two, the confidence level for these relationships is not very robust."In other words, these experts don't know shit.Relying on these experts would have as much value as bringing in someone to read tea leaves.

Skyler said...It seems even the most mundane decisions on this case will be news.

================Not really that mundane, Skyler. The "The State knows it was Trayvon screaming as he was being murdered from irrefutable scientific analysis of the recordeed screams!!" was the core of the 2nd degree murder case.

Add the PC orchestrators of the demonization campaign of neighborhood watch people - also had to throw in that "Trayvon's own grieving mother swears it was the voice of her little angel child".

Never mind that Zimmerman said he was screaming for help, the witness that was there saying Angelic Trayvon was on top of some screaming guy and going all MMA on him. Zimmerman's brother was quoted as saying it was his brother screaming..and no doubt Zimmermans own "grieving mother", saint that she is, would also say it was her little Georgie angel, if asked.

There's something very wrong with black society today, and as far as I can tell it starts with these black women screeching about how innocent their murderous thugs are. The deserve the hell they live in because they won't fix the problem. I'll give the NofI props for pointing out that whitey ain't gonna save your black asses.

What we need them to do is exclude the pictures of Zimmerman bloody and beaten after the incident. They also need to exclude the texts and posts of Marvin about his being a thug and drug dealer and his past history of breaking and entering. That is all hearsay.

Then we can get on with the lynching. It also important to notice the race of everyone in the jury and the judge and the lawyers and discuss this constantly. We need the races to be as Balkanized as possible so the progressive agenda can move forward.

And then we'll have riots, spurred on by the media and community organizers from the neighborhood up to you-know-where, and there'll be film at 11 and we'll be able to talk about something besides those made-up scandals for at least a week, and maybe people will start to think it's about time to have a new minority in the country...

The. Exclusion of both voice analysis guys' testimony focuses the trial on the witnesses recollections,. That is proper for juries can tell from live witnesses under going cross examination what did happen. The system works.

So wait for it.

I am curious to see Zimmerman in action. If he is the victim, we will all know it and accept it.

I still don't understand why Zimmerman is even on trial. If Zimmerman had a bloody nose, cuts on the back of his skull, a possible contusion on the top of his head and a wet shirt from being on his back in the grass, what basis does the prosecution have (other than political) for concluding that he wasn't acting in self-defense?

I have noticed that the words "racial profiling" have become a big issue in the case. But so what if Zimmerman racially profiled Martin? Since when is it a crime for a neighborhood watch volunteer to racially profile someone? Cops yes perhaps, but not the average citizen using his experience and common sense to try and prevent crime.

I mean if racial profiling is a crime, why isn't Jessie Jackson in jail for saying that when he heard footsteps behind him at night he was always relieved when it turned out they were those of whites?

This seems to be the right decision. Reich didn't have enough of a vocal sample for an accurate test, so he just looped what he had to make it last longer. Which is ridiculous, of course, because if that worked there would be no time standard for speech samples.

He also electronically pitched up Zimmermans voice to see if he could get it to match the scream. When it didn't, he called it not a match.

Both of those points highlight the absolute non-scientific ness of Reich.

If Zimmerman had a bloody nose, cuts on the back of his skull, a possible contusion on the top of his head and a wet shirt from being on his back in the grass, what basis does the prosecution have (other than political) for concluding that he wasn't acting in self-defense?

Because, you can sustain injuries even if you are not acting in self defense.

e.g., If I punch you in the face and you knock me down to prevent me hitting you again, I can hardly claim that just because I have a bloody nose and cut on my head I was acting in self defense.

Here's the litmus test: If your culture has slur words for members of your group that DO try to assimilate, then you and your group probably are in really really big trouble.I don't think Asians have one.

Here's the litmus test: If your culture has slur words for members of your group that DO try to assimilate, then you and your group probably are in really really big trouble. I don't think Asians have one.

Banana. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside.

Peter

Lame and rare. Also, sounds made up by Whites.

Try again, and don't offer an example unless it has the social impact close to that of Uncle Tom or House N.

Someone - "Here's the litmus test: If your culture has slur words for members of your group that DO try to assimilate, then you and your group probably are in really really big trouble.

I don't think Asians have one."

Asians are not monolithic. Besides a couple stupid ones that come from acculturated Asian-American leftists like "banana" (there being no great Delta in white or Asian values in the home and workplace - so a dumb play on "Oreo"). The slurs are mainly religious, ethnic, or based on strata.

Ethnic - (Chinese on Japanese) Dick sucking bloodthirsty barbarians (Japanese on Chinese) Inferior in every way to true Yamotos, only fit to serve us if we let them live.(Chinese Han on any minority within China)Why are they still alive? Why didn't we Han kill all of them?(Chinese and Japanese on Koreans) Vile dogs only independent because neither the more advanced Japanese or Chinese wish to pollute their culture with our version of Negroes.

(SE Asians on Chinese overseas people living there) Unethical, money grubbing scum that would exploit us and seek power over us by any means possible. They are the Jews of Asia, loyal to nothing but themselves and their hunger for wealth and power. Disloyal to our nation. Anytime we can get rid of more of those CHinese cockroaches is a good day for Vietnam/Philippines/Burma/Indonesia.Class (Dumb, igorant, sleeps with his pigs - goober peasant from Sechuan with no business being in Shanghai trying to get a job we stole from America that should go to a true Shanghai Han.)

Maybe "banana" is a white-created term, but it sounds more like something Asians themselves would have done. As for its impact, I have no doubt whatsoever that being called a banana if you're Asian is just as hurtful as being called an Uncle Tom or House Nigger if you are black. Hate is hate.

Freder Frederickson - "In this case there is no evidence that Martin was a "murderous thug"."

-----------Freder is right.Trayvon was just a thug. Not a "murderous" thug like other young black males that do 53% of the murders in America, 58% of armed robberies, and half the stranger-on-stranger rapes.And like with Muslim terrorism, where it is true that most Muslims are not terrorists, the disproportionate involvement by Muslims in terror, like the case of young blacks living the thug life -- creates associations in the eyes of others..(What blacks even more wary of young black male thugs than other races - whine endlessly is 'profiling".)

There is no evidence Trayvon ever killed anyone on one of his home break-in burglaries or killed anyone with his fists or feet in his MMA street fights.Freder is correct.

Maybe "banana" is a white-created term, but it sounds more like something Asians themselves would have done. As for its impact, I have no doubt whatsoever that being called a banana if you're Asian is just as hurtful as being called an Uncle Tom or House Nigger if you are black.

And then we'll have riots, spurred on by the media and community organizers from the neighborhood up to you-know-where..."

That's when the DoJ steps in and tries Zimmerman for violating Trayvon's civil rights. That's what they did to the LA cops in the Rodney King case. I'm sure Holder will exercise his judgement and try to hang the bastard.

Since when is it a crime for a neighborhood watch volunteer to racially profile someone? Cops yes perhaps, but not the average citizen using his experience and common sense to try and prevent crime.

LOL, yeah, we wouldn't want the cops using common sense and experience!

All of this amounts to Thought Crimes, however. You just aren't allowed to notice that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country. If you do notice, society will come down on your honkey ass like a ton of bricks. (Because only whites notice these kinds of things, and people that count as white.)

Agreed, but only about the term "murderous". Trayvon was a self-described No Limit Nigger who loved the thug life and fighting. I mean, if HE says he's a nigger who loves beating the shit out of people, then it is safe to assume that he is a nigger that loves beating the shit out of people.

In fact, it is undisputed that the only person with a deadly weapon in this altercation was Zimmerman.

Ever seen anyone get there head beat in on pavement? Not pretty. But yeah, let's only count the things that liberals hate as deadly weapons.

That's when the DoJ steps in and tries Zimmerman for violating Trayvon's civil rights.

Yep, ain't no way Zimmerman is staying out of jail. I just hope they convict him the first time. (I am white living in a predominantly black neighborhood, and I don't even want to chance it. So yeah, that makes me horrible.)

Fred Frederson: Because, you can sustain injuries even if you are not acting in self defense.

But Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he acted in self-defense. It's the prosecution's job to prove that he did not. And I submit there's no evidence for that.

Zimmerman didn't go up to Martin and start pounding on him. Martin had no cuts, bloody nose, marks on his head, or contusions prior to being shot (or afterwards either). Zimmerman was the one who had all those. It is clear someone beat on Zimmerman but no evidence Zimmerman beat on anyone else.

So I ask again, what evidence does the prosecution have that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense?

Icepick said...That's when the DoJ steps in and tries Zimmerman for violating Trayvon's civil rights.

Yep, ain't no way Zimmerman is staying out of jail. I just hope they convict him the first time. (I am white living in a predominantly black neighborhood, and I don't even want to chance it. So yeah, that makes me horrible.)

=================From even a personal perspective, not smart.If it becomes against the law for anyone to defend themselves against an attacking black thug, save other blacks, you will have a lot more to fear than a few days of black thugs rioting. Just because they couldn't make an example out of someone that dared to protect themselves against black violence.

Yes, you will have the liberals and Jews running the media from NYC and LA claiming "whitey had it coming" and "It's Selma all over again" or "It's dead Saint MLK all over again".....But the country is sick of the riots, crime, and the old liberal/progressive Jewish 60s Coalition blaming white Christian males for everything from gangs of blacks beating up other races or burning and looting.

By all means, let the thugs try it..Maybe someone will react and not just kill them, but target a few of the "New Left" now running academia and the media.

Just remember, the next time you see some brother walking around your neighborhood with a krunked up grill, a perma-snarl, pants drooping so far off his ass he has to hold them up with one hand, and a hand-written tee-shirt that says "Justice for Trayvon" on one side and "No justice, no peace" on the other side, he's not threatening to riot if the jury doesn't convict. No, he's merely threatening to write a strongly worded letter to the editor of the Orlando Sentinel in order to voice his outrage.

Irrepective of what happens to Mr Zimmerman, he did the state of Florida a favor by ridding it of Mr Martin--A little black wanna be thug--good fucking riddance to really bad garbage.

Bunk.

Martin had a right to life, and up until jumping an armed man in the dark had done nothing to deserve dying. He was headed down the wrong path, but so fucking what? He could have turned it around, or not. It isn't the job of people to walk around shooting other people based solely on being a dumb-ass.

That said, here's my own opinion of what happened that night.

The neighborhood was undergoing a crime wave of break-ins. Zimmerman decided he wanted to help. He had also seen some things that scared the Hell out of him because he lived there. He armed himself and started trying to keep an eye on things.

One night he sees a black teen-ager he doesn't know doing the ghetto shuffle in the rain, looking like he's casing the place. Z started following the kid in his truck until the kid gets suspicious. Then the kid ducks around back (along a public path, it should be noted, where he had a perfect right to be) to get away from someone following him - someone who may well have meant Martin harm, from Martin's perspective. (And this isn't an unreasonable suspicion on Martin's part. Ever had someone roll up behind you and start following you in the dark?)

Zimmerman made the stupid decision to get out of his truck to continue pursuit on foot. IIRC he was already out of his truck BEFORE the police dispatcher told him to stay in his truck. He started around the back of the houses to keep an eye on Martin.

In one sense, this is quite neighborly of Zimmerman - he's trying to do his neighbors a good deed by keeping an eye on a potential thug out to do them harm. But it was still stupid and ill-advised.

He loses Martin in the dark, gets scarred (you can hear it in his voice) and decides to head back to the car. This is when Martin confronts him.

There just isn't any evidence about this moment that is convincing. What happens may have started as a verbal confrontation that went physical fast, or Martin may have jumped Zimmerman to start the thing. Don't know, can't know.

Regardless, Martin had made his own stupid decision: He decided to jump someone and beat on them.

I actually get this response. First, discounting whether Martin was a thug wanna-be or a thug (he was at least a wanna-be, by the evidence of his past tweets, calling hinmself a no limit nigger, his history, etc), he was also a young man. Young men have too much testosterone for their own good, and that makes them prone to taking risks. Starting a fight with someone you think is following you doesn't seem as bad an idea as it is when you're in your teens.

Then Martin starts winning the fight, and he starts beating the Hell out of Zimmerman. Zimmerman probably feared for his life at this point.

Some accounts state that Martin reached for the gun, a struggle ensued and Martin was shot. Maybe that happened, maybe Zimmerman just pulled his piece because he was scarred, losing, and didn't have much time to consider option. Either way, one shot is fired, Martin is killed.

As I see it, both of them made stupid decisions: Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck, and Martin should have hauled ass once he was out of Zimmerman's site instead of jumping him.

I think Zimmerman acted in self-defense: He was losing and had no idea what Martin (whom he didn't know) would do to him, especially if Martin knocked Zimmerman out and THEN found Zimmerman's gun.

I also think Martin was acting in self-defense. He had a stranger following him, and he had no reason to assume Zimmerman was an upstanding citizen looking to help keep the neighborhood safe versus being some sort of danger. Starting the fight (as I believe Martin did) probably puts him up on some sort of battery charge, but I still think he can reasonably said to have been acting in self-defense. Martin was just stupid to have not run when he had the chance.

Martin didn't deserve to die, but that's how it happened. I don't believe that Zimmerman deserves to go to jail over this, but that is probably what is going to happen ultimately. (Better for Zimmerman to go to a state prison than end up getting fucked in the ass by the President and ending up in a SuperMax.)

If it becomes against the law for anyone to defend themselves against an attacking black thug, save other blacks, you will have a lot more to fear than a few days of black thugs rioting.

That's real easy to say if you don't live in a potential riot zone. We can't afford to lose much. The house burns down? We're homeless. One of us gets hurt? Who's paying the medical bills? One of us gets dead? Whose fixing that?

One, two, three people at a time? I don't scare easily. (I've chased a pack of angry pit bulls out of my yard bare-handed.) That's something that one can confront and plan for. An angry mob? That shit ain't for play.

So thank you, I will hope for a non-riot in any event, and George can contemplate his own bad judgement in a cell somewhere safely out of mind.

Icepick--you because you assume I live in Tennessee now I am not a florida cracker? Ok--I was born in Jackson Memorial hospital in 1941. My mother was born in Kissimmee, my dad in Havana although the family home was in Ybor city in tampa.

Don't give me that shit that somehow you look at where I live now and tell me I am not a cracker--I am a proud cracker--and my roots go back a lot further than yours.

Don't give me that shit that somehow you look at where I live now and tell me I am not a cracker--I am a proud cracker--and my roots go back a lot further than yours.

First off, dumbass, I didn't bring up the cracker thing. Garage mahal did. I responded to HIM, making no claims about crackers other than that I couldn't remember any cracker riots.

Then you brought it up to make an issue out of it with me. So, you senile shit-for-brained Tennessee-living dip stick (and what self-respecting Floridian would voluntarily live in Tennessee?), shove it up you ass sides ways and spin on it. This isn't a thing I'm making an issue out of until you start telling me that you are more a cracker than I am.

Second, how is it you know my background better than I do? You make big claims about your Florida roots (Daddy was Cuban!), but do you know what mine are? Doubtful.

And in any event, I don't really fucking CARE. So what. You don't live here NOW. The fact that you were born here back before (most likely) the US got involved in WWII doesn't mean a GOD damned thing.

Finally, I would just like to ask: Do you like to go around shooting people to death just because you think they're going to turn out badly?

And if you think my wife and child being killed and having my home burned down in a riot is merely an inconvenience, then you're a sadistic bitch. Seriously, we got some bad looking dudes in my neighborhood walking around wearing "No justice, no peace" shirts just looking for a reason. But I'm glad to know that you are all in favor of me and mine getting killed so you can feel all high and mighty.

Let's imagine a thought experiment. We place a 1,000 different men in the same situation as Zimmerman. Identical night, they are armed and safely driving along in their car when they first spot Martin.

Out of that 1,000 men how many do you think end up shooting Martin dead? My guess, only one, Zimmerman.

This is the basis for the trial and this is why he should be convicted of manslaughter. Most normal men placed in that identical situation would not have killed Martin. It was an unnecessary death brought about by the incompetence/cowardice of Zimmerman.

It is also made with Arizona Iced Tea grapefruit flavor and Skittles, both of which Trayvon bought at the 7-11. He asked for Robitussin DM, the cough syrup ingredient, but the clerk refused. The cough syrup is now kept behind the counter. Trayvon was new to the area and may not have realized that.

This should come out at the trial. He was also weaving on the video, one reason why the drink is called "lean."

I'm such a cracker that I could be equally a Ritz or a Saltine because those two crackers were around my household before I was and stayed around long after I left that household. Not the same boxes of crackers, of course, coming and going, tons of those two crackers.

Trailer park type crackers innit

That's how bad it is.

Presently I'm so crackery I make my own crackers, and so cheesy they turn out to be cheese crackers.

Also, Darleen, you aren't getting what's going on : For all intents and purposes the President of the United States of America has declared that George Zimmerman murdered his symbolic son.

Let that sink in for a moment.

...

The President, much beloved among the black community, as declared George Zimmerman murdered the son he never had.

This threat was enough for the REPUBLICAN Governor of Florida to take a most unusual step in appointing a special prosecutor. That special prosecutor, chosen for her zeal in putting people on death row & such, was given the single goal of prosecuting Goerge Zimmerman regardless of the facts of the case.

It has been evident down here that the only reason the state hasn't charged Zimmerman with First Degree Murder is because even THEY can't stretch the truth that far.

Should Zimmerman SOMEHOW manage to not get convicted (I'm convinced the jurors will have a lot of behind the scenes pressure put on them to convict Zimmerman of SOMETHING), then Z is almost certainly going to get reamed by the US Department of Justice, with big assists from the good folks at the FBI, CIA, NSA and any other agency that the President can bring to bear. (I expect everyone in Zimmerman's family to get audited by the IRS.)

If all goes swimmingly well, the federal trial would be concluding right around the time of the 2014 election. You really think the President, THIS President, is going to let anything happen in that trial that won't be to his benefit by inflaming his base?

The fix is IN. Zimmerman's life was forfeit once the President decided that this was an issue he could use for grabbing even more power.

So yeah, at this point I am going to look at it purely from a position of self-interest. I live in a bad neighborhood full of black people that aren't exactly the sharpest knives or brightest bulbs, and many of them are pretty questionable ethically to begin with. A few years ago my house was invaded, but I wasn't living here then, it was just my mother and brother. Recently I've had my car burglarized. The house next door, having sat empty for about a year now, get gang signs painted on it regularly. I've seen the CHILDREN in the neighborhood beat animals to death. If the child is out of reach, they won't think twice about calling their mommas "Nigger". (And they'll get their asses beaten long into the night once they get caught.)

That's where I'm living now, and thanks to this wonderful economy of President Buttfuck, I've got no prospects of improving my circumstances. Do I really think my neighborhood will riot if Z gets acquitted? Most likely not, but the likelihood is way higher than 0%. And in any event, whites are likely to see their homes and cars vandalized, windows broken, and so on. Because there are bad people here just looking for an excuse.

And in THESE circumstances, I'm hoping for my sake and that of my family that Zimmerman gets tagged for a Manslaughter charge. He'll get to spend so time in jail, the mobs will be satisfied, and life will continue in its creeping petty pace.

And if Zimmerman had wanted to avoid all this? He could have stayed the Hell in his truck.

Long ago, there was a plane out of Los Angeles where somebody with a gun charged the cockpit and shot the crew, resulting in a crash and an investigation.Experts, I hope I am not confusing two crashes here, reconstructed the unintelligible voice recording as the co-pilot yelling "Capt'n's been shot."The investigation report recounted all of that, and after reviewing the airport and procedures pronounced that the security at the airport was lax.

Pacific Southwest Airlines flight 1771. There was strong evidence showing that a just-fired airline employee had shot his supervisor, who was a passenger on the flight, and then the crew. Voice recordings indicated the sound of a gunshot (presumably the supervisor's shooting), a flight attendant entering the cockpit and saying that there was a problem, a man's voice (determined to be that of the fired employee) saying "I'm the problem," then three more gunshots.In addition to the recordings, among the evidence recovered at the scene was a threatening note in the fired employee's handwriting addressed to his ex-supervisor, and the remains of a pistol with one of the fired employee's fingers in the trigger guard. Basically, the evidence was about as strong as you could get.

Most normal men placed in that identical situation would not have killed Martin. It was an unnecessary death brought about by the incompetence/cowardice of Zimmerman.

EXACTLY!!! Zimmerman should never have let himself get so severely beaten by a scrawny teenager whom he outweighed by at least 50 pounds. I know, the Beta Boys in the blogosphere all claim that Martin was a strong, highly skilled street fighter because he was black, but in reality blacks do not have any inherent edge whatsoever in strength or in street fighting skills.

We place a 1,000 different men in the same situation as Zimmerman. Identical night, they are armed and safely driving along in their car when they first spot Martin.

Skulking through the apartment complex...

Out of that 1,000 men how many do you think end up shooting Martin dead? My guess, only one, Zimmerman.

No, after being jumped and beaten up by a gang-banger wannabe, probably about 800.

The other 200, being young enough and fit enough, would have kicked the little punk's ass from Hell to breakfast.

This is the basis for the trial and this is why he should be convicted of manslaughter. Most normal men placed in that identical situation would not have killed Martin. It was an unnecessary death brought about by the incompetence/cowardice of Zimmerman

No, it was brought about because "Trayvon" wanted to be a punk when he grew up.

He just forgot a lot of punks don't live long enough to grow up.

And most men, thinking their lives in danger, would have shot the little monster.

Shit, several million people saw the second plane fly INTO the World Trade Center and there are still people who believe there was never a plane there. (Or maybe they don't believe the building was there. I'm not current on 9/11 conspiracies as I thought South Park kind of said all that needed to be said on the topic.)

And in THESE circumstances, I'm hoping for my sake and that of my family that Zimmerman gets tagged for a Manslaughter charge. He'll get to spend so time in jail, the mobs will be satisfied, and life will continue in its creeping petty pace.

Unfortunately, I doubt that a manslaughter verdict will be good enough for the can't-wait-to-riot contingent.

Me, I hope for a not-guilty verdict, because (at least based on the publicly-available evidence), self-defense seems plausible. But, then, I don't live in a place where it's very likely anyone will be torching cars and smashing windows and looting stores when the verdict comes down.

I was living in North Oakland when the Rodney King verdict was announced. Every merchant in Berkeley had brought out the plywood used for such occasions (they are kind of frequent there), but on this particular occasion it wasn't enough; apparently the appropriate response to some cops being acquitted of brutality several hundred miles south is obviously to avail yourself of stereo equipment and expensive clothing you haven't paid for. Sorta redresses the balance, right?

The store I worked for then, Tower Classics (remember when Tower had separate classical music stores? Hell, remember when Tower Records existed?) wasn't terribly interesting to the looters, but they bashed all the windows in anyway, just on principle.

I prefer the actual racism of Cedarford because he's up front about it, and he's developed it into theories and a worldview. It's like an fine aged cheese laced with truths.

True Florida story:

I was at a Tampa library with rows of computers in a tiny room. In front were two black ladies, both with babies on their laps and one with another kid running around while looking at photos of their baby daddies in prison, ooohing and ahhing at their prison photos. Gold teeth, scary-ass looking baby daddies, as you can find in Florida.

It was a like a day out for them.

There was a little Hispanic girl playing some sort of game on full volume with her parents nowhere to be seen, and she was sitting next to a lobster red white guy in his 40's looking at raunchy porn in the FRONT ROW where it was visible for all.

On top of this, one of the old guys from the nursing home up the road slipped while getting up, and the paramedics had to be called a little later on.

edutcher, I think a thought experiment is useless in this case in any event. It doesn't matter what 1000 hypothetical men would have done in a SOMEWHAT similar situation. All that matters is what happened in THAT situation.

Also, if one WERE going to make that experiment why not do it the other way? Take 1000 teenage bos and puit them in that situation. How many of them get shot because they thought it was a terrific idea to double back and jump someone with the intent of beating that person's skull in against the pavement? My guess is only one, the No Limit Nigger himself, Trayvon "I look like Barack Obama's hypothetical son" Martin.

It took two stupid decisions that night (plus a lot of happenstance/luck/chance/whatever) for Martin to end up dying from a single GSW to the chest.

"Let's imagine a thought experiment. We place a 1,000 different men in the same situation as Zimmerman. Identical night, they are armed and safely driving along in their car when they first spot Martin.

Out of that 1,000 men how many do you think end up shooting Martin dead? My guess, only one, Zimmerman.

This is the basis for the trial and this is why he should be convicted of manslaughter. Most normal men placed in that identical situation would not have killed Martin. It was an unnecessary death brought about by the incompetence/cowardice of Zimmerman."

-- That's incorrect; the moment we have to determine is *after* Zimmerman was jumped. Would someone have defended themselves while on the ground being beaten? The bad decisions, on both parts, that brought us to that point, frankly, don't matter.

It wouldn't matter if Martin had murdered 17 nuns the day before, or if Zimmerman hated black people and was running for local office on the official "Bring Slavery Back" platform: All that matters is: "Was Zimmerman justified in using lethal force at that moment?"

(Mind you: I pretty much agree with the series of events that were laid out above, that two idiots did stupid things that left one injured and one dead. Either one could have walked away/prevented this from happening. They didn't. Zimmerman made bad decisions; the question is whether he was justified in self-defense or if he was not, not whether he should have followed Martin.)

I think you misunderstand the terms of the debate. The general public has a sense of justice that should come into play here, not just the empty word games of lawyers.

Most people intuitively know that if placed in the identical situation to Zimmerman they would not have ended up killing Martin. It was a completely unnecessary death. There is no compelling evidence that Martin would have done anything wrong, much less illegal, on his walk back to his Father's place.

Clearly there was gross incompetence on Martin's part. He was carrying a deadly weapon and the onus was him to act in way that was safe and ethical. Clearly he failed. He should face a jury and he should be convicted of manslaughter.

If Zimmerman had been hit by a truck, Martin also wouldn't have died. It doesn't matter though. All that matters is that exact instant: Was Zimmerman honestly being overwhelmed, and did he feel his life was threatened?

It doesn't matter if someone makes a bad decision or chooses something other people wouldn't do. That doesn't mean he can be harmed because "Well, it was dumb to walk down that street."

And, no. Simply carrying a gun, legally, doesn't mean any time you use it, even if you made a bad choice, means you committed a crime. In fact, if as some people believe, Zimmerman was *walking back to his car* when Martin attacks him/confronts him, then he is even doing what you wanted: Trying to avoid the confrontation.

"There is no compelling evidence that Martin would have done anything wrong, much less illegal, on his walk back to his Father's place."

-- And if there had been a tornado, he may never have left the place. That, again, doesn't matter.

He did do something apparently illegal: He attacked Zimmerman (or, after defending himself from Zimmerman, continued to beat him on the ground, becoming the aggressor, thus engaging in an assault. Self defense is weird like that; once you've stopped your attacker (Martin had Zimmerman pinned, per several witnesses and the physical evidence), you can't continue to beat them.

The driver could have faced a charge of vehicular homicide. What is at issue here is a broad sense of justice. There was no need for this kid to die. A competent person in Zimmerman's position would not have caused Martin to die.

That has nothing to do with it though. The question comes back to the *moment of the alleged crime.* Does your broader sense of justice not care that Zimmerman may have been justified in defending himself, or do you feel raped women should lie and take it if they walk down a dark alley instead of shooting their attacker because "that rapist didn't have to die if she didn't walk that way?"

I think you misunderstand the terms of the debate. The general public has a sense of justice that should come into play here, not just the empty word games of lawyers.

Troll is the arbiter of the debate.

Sure he is.

No, the law is what counts, not some Lefty "sense of justice" that translates into lynch law.

Most people intuitively know that if placed in the identical situation to Zimmerman they would not have ended up killing Martin.

Really, you have statistical data for this?

It was a completely unnecessary death. There is no compelling evidence that Martin would have done anything wrong, much less illegal, on his walk back to his Father's place.

Again, really?

All that wannabe gang-banger stuff, the involvement with drugs, just fun and games, right?

Clearly there was gross incompetence on Martin's part. He was carrying a deadly weapon and the onus was him to act in way that was safe and ethical. Clearly he failed. He should face a jury and he should be convicted of manslaughter.

Yeah, let's all forget that trial by jury stuff, hearing the evidence, going by the law.

We've got communities to organize.

We need to keep blacks all in thrall of the Left because, if they ever wake up and realize what's been done to them over the last 40 years, the only Permanent Majority would be Republican

Matthew Sablan said...after defending himself from Zimmerman, continued to beat him on the ground, becoming the aggressor, thus engaging in an assault.

The injuries to Zimmerman were certainly not incapacitating, in that most people could have continued to fight, and definitely not life threatening so this is clearly not the case. At the point that Martin was shot he could have reasonably believed that Zimmerman continued to be a physical threat.

"The injuries to Zimmerman were certainly not incapacitating, in that most people could have continued to fight, and definitely not life threatening so this is clearly not the case."

-- An individual is not required to be beat to the point of near death before defending themselves. A woman doesn't need to box with her assailant and be penetrated when raped before defending herself. Don't be an idiot.

I've got no prospects of improving my circumstances.If you're seriously scared about safety, tightness of money should not prevent you from moving. I suppose most people in violent neighborhoods get desensitized until too late.

Fifteen years ago, I was about to start gutting and restoring the old house my father and grandfather were born in, when I realized there was a crack house around the corner--a block from police HQ. Then my step-monster threatened to move next door to go to grad school. An eight month depression followed, but I got it done and it worked out. Last month, the step-monster announced she was finally going to move next door (with my father in tow)--and dropped dead 4 days later! Ding, Dong!

Matthew Sablan said...An individual is not required to be beat to the point of near death before defending themselves.

Which is arguably all Martin was doing.

But as usual you are missing the broader point. Zimmerman was acting as an authority figure in this situation and the totality of his behavior is in question. His is not some oblivious rape victim wandering drunkenly down the street.

Uh, or it is a case of having a No Limit Nigger jump you in the dark and pound your head into the pavement. Up until Martin confronts Zimmerman, Zimmerman has done NOTHING illegal, though he has done something stupid. Stupid isn't generally illegal if all one is doing is walking around ONE'S OWN NEIGHBORHOOD.

If 1000 crane operators perform some routine operation safely and then one drops a steel girder on a baby carriage of course there is a trial to assess the cause of his incompetence.

Okay, then to make the analogies work, you have to assume that 999 armed men while having someone sit on their chest and beat their head against the pavement would not use their weapons. You are stating that 999 of them would lie there and take it. That would make the situations analogous.

Or, you have to have 999 crane operators working under ideal weather conditions in the middle of nowhere NOT drop a girder on a non-existent baby carriage, while the 1000th operator is working under gail force winds directly overhead of a baby pageant.

Seriously, you cannot claim that Zimmerman did NOT have a right to walk around his own neighborhood. It's stupid given the circumstances, but he had the right.

If you're seriously scared about safety, tightness of money should not prevent you from moving. I suppose most people in violent neighborhoods get desensitized until too late.

We live here because I inherited the house when my mother died - I own it free and clear. Cost of living here is about $400 a year - property taxes and such. At that cost we can swing it. Above that? It starts getting really problematic.

So, where am I going to move that is safer and doesn't cost me more than $400 a year?

An individual is not required to be beat to the point of near death before defending themselves.

Which is arguably all Martin was doing.

All?

Sounds like more than enough to get shot.

But as usual you are missing the broader point. Zimmerman was acting as an authority figure in this situation and the totality of his behavior is in question. His is not some oblivious rape victim wandering drunkenly down the street.

Oh, so because Zimmerman "was acting as an authority figure in this situation", Little "Trayvon" was justified in attacking him.

This is the kind of "logic" the ACLU throws at Lefty judges because they're thick-headed enough to buy it.

Hey, Officer Krupke, I'm depraved because I'm deprived.

Icepick said...

True enough, but will that stop the community organizers in Miami?

Or LA?

TO be more blunt than usual, I don't give a fuck about Miami or LA.

OK, hotshot, when you are done playing toughie, do you give a fuck if it happens where you are?

Because, back in the 60s, that famed community organizer, Stokeley Carmichael, and SNCC went from city to city doing just that.

"Zimmerman was acting as an authority figure in this situation and the totality of his behavior is in question."

-- Which has nothing to do with the fact Martin was shot while on top of and beating another human being. You seem to be ignoring the part about how raped does a woman need to be before she can defend herself if she's drunk and wandering a bad neighborhood.

Anyone can be sucker punched by a person who is lessor skilled and smaller. Happens all the time.

Fact is Zimmerman was knocked off his feat, strattled, and beaten. The jury will look through his state of mind at that instant. Experts can show how when one is beaten panic sets in (survival instincts) and that would push him to use his gun.

Self defense is what he claims. He claims also he could not retreat nor use another force at that time that he had knowledge of (Zimmerman was not an martial arts expert) and thus his only escape was to use lethal force.

Fred F at 3:43 said --In this case there is no evidence that Martin was a "murderous thug". In fact, it is undisputed that the only person with a deadly weapon in this altercation was Zimmerman.--

Legally absurd. The test for self defense does not require a "deadly weapon". More people are killed annually by "hands, fists, feet, etc", as the FBI puts it, than blunt objects, shotguns or rifles. The test is, does a person reasonably fear for his life. A guy sitting on another's chest beating him about the head meets that test and is sufficient evidence to determine he may be aspiring to be a murderous thug.Zimmerman was under no obligation to test your hypothesis by allowing it to continue.

Fred F at 3:43 said --In this case there is no evidence that Martin was a "murderous thug". In fact, it is undisputed that the only person with a deadly weapon in this altercation was Zimmerman.--

Legally absurd. The test for self defense does not require a "deadly weapon". More people are killed annually by "hands, fists, feet, etc", as the FBI puts it, than blunt objects, shotguns or rifles. The test is, does a person reasonably fear for his life. A guy sitting on another's chest beating him about the head meets that test and is sufficient evidence to determine he may be aspiring to be a murderous thug.Zimmerman was under no obligation to test your hypothesis by allowing it to continue.

OK, hotshot, when you are done playing toughie, do you give a fuck if it happens where you are?

Yeah, and given that for me this is a LOCAL STORY, that is why I am concerned. If this were a Miami story, or an LA story, or a NYC story, I wouldn't care, because the local Central Florida thugs wouldn't care. They didn't riot in the Orlando area when LA burned back in the 1990s. Hell, they didn't even riot in sympathy with the various Liberty City riots of recent decades.

But for some reason the Orlando area has been "lucky" in this regard in recent years: First Casey Anthony and now this. We're getting a lot of media attention now.

As for the wandering riot show: That isn't going to work so well today. The nature of the complaints have changed and the nature of the media coverage has changed. You're going to need something that hits at a given locale for things to get nasty. Frankly, I don't think anyone in LA or Miami or anywhere outside of Central Florida is going to riot either way.

Again, this is a local story to me, and my concerns are strictly local.

Because, back in the 60s, that famed community organizer, Stokeley Carmichael, and SNCC went from city to city doing just that.

And back in the 1960s everything was right at the peak of the civil rights movement and its aftermath, as well as a wave of assassinations of various leaders.

That is NOT the case today, despite the grievance industry. Justice for Trayvon today - and the national media covers it but really only the locals are passionate. Justice for the West Memphis Four (or whatever the Hell that was) - and the national media will play it up some but only the locals are passionate. And so on.

So I'm not really worried about the Revenge of the Son of the Bride of Stokeley Carmichael. I'm worried about what's going on in my own backyard.

For the Governor and the President and the national media this is all a game to garner various style points, but only the locals will be passionate enough to get worked up about this to the point of hitting the streets. Miami is the only other part of the country that might see riots just because Trayvon and his family are from there.

Not what he said, Darleen. If you want to go all stone-cold accountancy on this, he's comparing living in a house that currently costs him $400/year but might be burned to the ground with his family in it if a certain court case comes out a certain way, vs. whatever he might be able to afford that isn't anywhere near the sort of people who torch things when they don't get the verdict they prefer.

Have you got that? The house costs him $400/year. Moving elsewhere -- even sitting out a few nights of riots in a motel -- will likely cost him that in less than a week. And he might well come back to no house.

As the Rioting Sadly Continues I ask that -- Let Me Be Clear -- All Americans Take a Moment To Examine Their Actions Within the Shared American Heart that Provides the Providence of Truth. My Friends, Do Not Cling Bitterly to Justice: Justice is a Concept Best Left to Constitutional Lawyers, Community Organizers and God. Our ForeFathers Saw Blood in the Streets and -- Wisely -- Knew it Was Only A Short-Term Answer: Paul Revere's Horse, After All, Could Not Run Faster than the Cause of Peace, Nor Could George Washington Cross the Potomac Before Global Warming.

As Americans, We All Have the Freedom to Choose Between Skittles and Death, Between Lean and Celine Dion: was Not this the Lessons of Normandy and Gettysburg and Kent State?

Let us Not Downplay the Pain that Has Led to Blood in Our Streets: Only Together Can We Pay the Responsible Retirements of the Americans who Clean this Blood and Sweep the Broken Glass. In this Moment of Fear and Uncertainty We are -- All of Us -- Federal Workers.

Listen, asswipe, YOU have the liberty to pack up and go elsewheres when you are in danger. That you want to sit on your fat ass and demand the world run on your whim is unconscionable.

I don't think you can follow your own chain of thought. I the world were running on my whim I would probably be in a different circumstance, yes?

Also, where would we pack up and go to?

.........

Oh, wait, there is no place else to go except to living in a car or under an overpass or hoping to get into a homeless shelter.

Look, just because your life if going so well that you get to choose where you live is wonderful for you. My isn't going that well. Neither are the lives of many others I know personally. Times are tough, compromises have to be made. One we've made is that we are living in a crummy neighborhood because it beats being homeless. People are NOT just going to take us in. The only family we've got left are my wife's sister and mother, who live on the other side of the country, and are themselves trying to avoid losing THEIR homes.

There is no fall back position. There is no safety net. This is IT. And poor as it is, we're lucky to have it. Or perhaps you missed the conversation in which it was learned (by me) that another one of the regular commenters here actually is homeless now?

You are aware I'm sure that the dispatcher never told Zimmerman to stay in his truck. He merely observed, "We don't need you to do that."

That is correct, and thank you for the correction.

But even if he had ordered Zimmerman to stay in his truck, since when is anyone obliged to follow the orders of a civilian police dispatcher?

Another excellent point. As I've said, George Zimmerman had every right to go walking around in the common areas of his own neighborhood. It was still stupid to get out of the truck IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, but he was within his rights.

Pogo, I'm sure I'm just being overly paranoid. But sometimes one can't afford to be otherwise. And it's a fact that I live in a high crime neighborhood. It's a fact that I've got empty houses adjacent to my property. It's a fact that those houses get used for things that aren't quite legal. And so on. This house WAS invaded in 2008. The perps, despite being identified by an eyewitness, got away scott free.

Regardless, I'll be happier when Central Florida finally stops getting all this attention. Can't people just pay attention to the new Transformers ride at Universal?

We -- as Americans, Of All Races and Creeds -- Know that Violence in the Streets is Only A Short Subsidized Bus Ride from Violence in the Home. This is NOT an Issue of a Woman's Right to Choose or the Equality of Gay Marriage: this Is About the Right of Seven-Eleven Owners to Practice their Lives Free of Fear: the Budweiser in Their Coolers May Belong to Everyone, But It is Not Free: there are Sales Taxes to Be Paid.

I grew Up in a Time of America Where Justice seemed an Abstract Concept, Like Quantum Physics or Responsibility. Though the Seas Now Lower Their Level, this is Still One of the Many Causes Closest to My Heart: To Protect One's Neighbor Does Not Protect America. Let Our Doors Be Open, and Our Refrigerators Unattended.

Though the Violence in Our Streets may Be Inarticulate, it Speaks to a Greater Truth: we -- as Americans -- Have Still a Far Distance to Travel Together to Arrive at Equality. Also: I was Born in Kenya.

"Sometimes, in my mind, I followed him to his apartment on the corner of hidden streets, and he turned and smiled back at me before he faded through a door into warm darkness. Then he Came Back and Beat My Head into the Pavement.

"The prolonged and tumultuous argument that ended by herding us into that street eludes me, though I have a sharp physical memory that, in the course of it, my underwear kept climbing like a damp snake around my legs and intermittent beads of sweat raced cool across my back. Then He Beat My Head into the Pavement.

"Out of the corner of his eye Zimmerman saw that the blocks of the sidewalks really formed a ladder and mounted to a secret place above the trees: he could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder. But then Someone Beat His Head into the Pavement.

"When the melody rose, Zimmerman's voice broke up sweetly, following it, in a way contralto voices have, and each change tipped out a little of his warm human magic upon the air, as his Head was Beaten into the Pavement."

"There was dancing now on the canvas in the garden; old men pushing young men backward in eternal graceless circles, relieving the orchestra for a moment of the burden of the banjo or the traps or having One's Head Beaten into the Pavement."

Out of that 1,000 men how many do you think end up shooting Martin dead? My guess, only one, Zimmerman.

Another liberal who assumes that his thought experiments prove reality instead of demonstrating his prejudices.

I won't presume to speak for other men, much less 999 of them, but if I'm on my back and some strong, six-foot, 17 year-old kid of any race has me pinned and is cracking my skull against the pavement and I have a gun -- yes, I will shoot him if I can.

"And in THESE circumstances, I'm hoping for my sake and that of my family that Zimmerman gets tagged for a Manslaughter charge. He'll get to spend so time in jail, the mobs will be satisfied, and life will continue in its creeping petty pace.

And if Zimmerman had wanted to avoid all this? He could have stayed the Hell in his truck."

There always be a Zimmerman. The more you give to the savages, the worse they get.

Icepick,, yours is a morality of a cannibal. You are ready to sacrifice an innocent man to save yourself. Well. Don't you think that you will get much from this sacrifice, the savages will still come after you and your family. You cannot appease them, and every nice gesture will only make stronger.

Let's imagine a thought experiment. We place a 1,000 different men in the same situation as Zimmerman. Identical night, they are armed and safely driving along in their car when they first spot Martin.

Out of that 1,000 men how many do you think end up shooting Martin dead? My guess, only one, Zimmerman.

This is the basis for the trial and this is why he should be convicted of manslaughter. "

Not really. Zimmerman was exercising his civil rights, when Martin attacked him. Just because you believe that 1000 men won't exercise their civil rights as Zimmerman did proves absolutely nothing.

This was interesting to me. Legally, Florida is a Frye state, instead of a Daubert state. Under Frye, the theory was that experts would duel it out in front of the jury, and may the best man win. It was up to the opposite party to discredit them. As a result, we got a lot of junk science getting utilized to make a lot of money for attorneys in highly questionable cases. Daubert was the Supreme Court case that basically put the judge in charge of being a gatekeeper to keep junk science out, along with the experts using it.

The explanation I got over at Volokh.com was that in Florida, even though it is technically still a Frye state, that the judges do get to act as gatekeepers there, as this judge did so admirably. If you have any questions about the ruling, read the case, and I think that she did a good job at explaining why these two state experts shouldn't be allowed to testify. They and how they applied their science was just not credible. For example, the first witness repeated or "looped" the scream sequence in order to get enough of it to analyze. The defense experts pointed out that looping the screams doesn't add any information, and, I would suggest, just makes it maybe seem more credible to non-experts.

I think that this was a decently large blow to the prosecution. They are left with the jury hearing the tape of the screams, probably multiple times. But, the screams are indistinct, esp. when they are overlaid by the 911 conversation going on. And, they may have some of the Martin family testifying that those were the screams of their son. But if they do, then this will likely be countered with testimony from the Zimmerman family that it was George screaming. And, if he gets on the stand to testify, then his own testimony. Plus, again, he had the injuries to show that he was the one being physically pummeled, along with the moisture and grass stains to show he was on his back, while Martin had the bruising on his knuckles showing that he was the one doing the pummeling, along with no injuries from being hit by Zimmerman. I think that the expert testimony about the screams was the primary way that the prosecution was going to use to overcome the physical evidence showing Martin as the aggressor, and that is now out of the picture.

I catch a some of the debate between communitarian and individualistic theories in this debate. One of the implied reasons that Zimmerman should be convicted seems to be that otherwise Blacks are going to riot and burn down parts of Florida, and, hopefully some of the worst parts of Chicago, NYC, DC, etc. That he should be forced to take one for the team, to prevent these riots. And, that is why I think that so many (white) leftists seem so bound and determined to convict Zimmerman using such self-serving logic, such as it was really his fault, because he was even questioning someone who looked like a possible burglar in an area that had been seeing a lot of burglaries, just because he looked and acted like a black thug. This was a place where Zimmerman was living, and had every legal and moral right to be, and Martin was only visiting as a guest of his father's girlfriend, while he was suspended from school for pot.

This is, to some extent, the heckler's veto, and I don't think good policy. We have seen the riot card played at least since a PCP crazed Rodney King was beaten after throwing large cops off his back. Arguably OJ was tried in LA instead of Brentwood, where he lived, to keep the Black community from rioting if he was convicted.

The individualistic answer here is that if they are going to riot if Zimmerman is acquitted, then let them riot. If you live in a riot susceptible place, then make sure that you are well armed, and stocked up with necessities, such as food and water. Probably an AR-15 or a shot gun, along with a hand gun, in the house, and hopefully a CCW for carrying the handgun outside the house. That sort of thing. And, the cops should be out in force.

Of course, it is easier for me to say this, than for someone like Icepick, who has to deal with this personally. I checked with Google maps, and I am right now 2979 miles, and a 45 hour drive, from Miami. This is a mostly white fairly small town, with a lot of guns and people who know how to use them. We do have a reservation starting maybe 30 miles up river from us, but that is pretty much it for minorities.

Still, if there is a race riot as a result of an acquittal in this case, and if enough of those rioting are either arrested (and do time) or die as a result, then maybe next time, the Black community will be less likely to riot when they don't get their way.

Remember, despite all the heated rhetoric from the left, that Martin didn't die because he was Black. Rather, he most likely died because he made the fatal mistake of physically assaulting someone who was legally carrying a concealed weapon. He had no legal right to knock Zimmerman to the ground and beat his head against the concrete. And he died, instead of Zimmerman, because he chose (his victim) poorly.

"Zimmerman was acting as an authority figure in this situation and the totality of his behavior is in question."

Maybe you would like this to be true, but it is not. Legally, what is important is that Martin hit Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, straddled him, and beat his head against the concrete. All supported by the physical evidence. There is no physical evidence that I know of that Zimmerman ever hit Martin. Zimmerman may have said all sorts of mean and racist things to Martin (unlikely, given his family and history), and Martin would not have been legally justified in assaulting Zimmerman, and the assault was felonious, without any possibility of a defense of self-defense.

The authority figure thing is just as bogus. First of all, so what? But, did Zimmerman ever tell Martin that he was Neighborhood Watch? No evidence to support that, and less than probable since it wasn't his scheduled shift. Zimmerman was rather a concerned homeowner in the area helping the police question a suspicious looking and acting person in his own neighborhood that had been recently seen a rash of burglaries. Martin looked to him, and would likely have looked to most of us, as a potential burglar, casing the neighborhood. And, yes, wearing that hoodie probably didn't help Marin fit in there, but rather, probably made him look more suspicious. Looking and acting suspicious was Martin's choice, not Zimmerman's. Somehow, that sort of personal responsibility shown by Zimmerman is being depreciated, and maybe even ridiculed, by many of those on the left who support Martin so vigorously.

Not really that mundane, Skyler. The "The State knows it was Trayvon screaming as he was being murdered from irrefutable scientific analysis of the recordeed screams!!" was the core of the 2nd degree murder case.

I think more the prosecution's best chance at overcoming Zimmerman's defense of self-defense. If the screams are Zimmerman's, which seems to me to be more likely, given the physical evidence, then shooting Martin was almost assuredly self-defense. But, if it is Martin screaming, then the self-defense becomes much less likely. And, if they can get by self-defense, they have a chance at muddying the waters enough with the Neighborhood Watch stuff combined with the Zimmerman's non-emergency call with the police dispatcher, to maybe convince a jury of his depraved mind at the time of the shooting, and to maybe completely discredit anything that Zimmerman could say in his own defense. But, now, with any Martin family testimony about the screams being their son's being cancelled out by Zimmerman family testimony to the contrary, and the physical evidence supporting Zimmerman, the prosecution is going to have a hard time disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe true, but Martin threw dice with Darwin, and lost. He assaulted what probably appeared to be a soft target, a middle aged, pudgy man, knocking him to the ground, straddled him, then beat his head into the concrete, MMA style. It just turned out that the apparently soft target was legally carrying a concealed handgun, which Martin most likely did not see until too late.

So, yes, Martin didn't have to die. But, he was responsible for his own death that night, for choosing his victim poorly, and committing what appears to have been a felonious assault against him. And, yes, since he wasn't quite a legal adult yet, his parents have some responsibility too.

AReasonableMan said...The injuries to Zimmerman were certainly not incapacitating, in that most people could have continued to fight, and definitely not life threatening so this is clearly not the case.

I still want an answer from A Reasonable Man of how raped does a woman need to be before she can defend herself, or someone else can defend her. If Zimmerman were legally required to keep fighting back, even on his back, being pummeled, am I legally in error if I tackle a man who has ripped off a woman's pants and is in the middle of raping her because, hey, she's still conscious and could fight back?

Come on Reasonable, I need to know when to apply the Zimmerman standard to rape victims. What about if an 8-year-old is being torn apart by wild dogs, but can still walk; should I not shoot the wild dogs? What if instead of dogs it is a gang of pedophiles?

I want to hear how the Zimmerman standard applies in other situations to find out if it is a real standard or simply a made up flight of fancy.

Matthew you are simply being silly. Zimmerman was the bigger stronger man, he was armed, he believed himself to be in a position of authority. There is no comparison to any of the other examples you cite.

The real issue is Zimmerman's incompetence. The reason people like me are so dubious about the proliferation of guns is because of idiots like Zimmerman. To empower twits like this with the use of deadly force is just asking for trouble.

Reasonable Man: IF the facts show that Zimmerman's head was being beaten into the ground, then lethal force was being used against him, and Martin didn't have a gun! If Martin had been slightly stronger, the ground slightly harder, Zimmerman's head slightly softer, Zimmerman would be dead.

On the night in question Zimmerman was functioning as an armed vigilante. He wasn't at home in the middle of a home invasion. When assessing what happened here you have to start with the fact that he was an armed vigilante and his actions and the outcome of those actions have to determined in light of this fact. No one gave Zimmerman the right to function as an armed vigilante, it was not the policy of the housing association to have untrained armed vigilantes patrolling their streets.

I don't want stupid armed vigilantes patrolling the streets. I have had teenage kids and will have one more in a few years. If they have to deal with armed authority figures I want them to at least be trained and actually employed to perform that function. My sympathies are with Martin's parents. I can imagine my own son's in the same situation and for one of them I can imagine a similar outcome.

I honestly do not understand the level of support for Zimmerman amongst the law and order crowd. Having armed vigilantes patrolling the streets and shooting teenage boys is definitely not my concept of law and order.

A reasonable man,Read up about the soccer referee in Utah a couple of months ago who died as the result of a single punch to the head. And then continue to convince yourself that Zimmerman's life was in no danger.

"When assessing what happened here you have to start with the fact that he was an armed vigilante"

-- Again, he was not.

"and his actions and the outcome of those actions have to determined in light of this fact."

-- And women shouldn't wear miniskirts to frat parties. Am I right?

"No one gave Zimmerman the right to function as an armed vigilante, it was not the policy of the housing association to have untrained armed vigilantes patrolling their streets."

-- He was not an armed vigilante; he actually had training; and with a neighborhood watch, some people ARE asked to patrol the streets. Zimmerman was not out to give crime a black eye that night; he saw something suspicious, started to look into it, then turned to walk away when he was confronted by/confronted Martin. All the facts lead to that moment. The question is: Who started the fight, and if Zimmerman did, were Martin's actions escalating it to the point where Zimmerman was no longer the aggressor?

"I don't want stupid armed vigilantes patrolling the streets."

-- No one does. Strawmen have no place in reasonable discussions.

"I have had teenage kids and will have one more in a few years. If they have to deal with armed authority figures I want them to at least be trained and actually employed to perform that function."

-- A meaningless appeal to emotions that ignores that if your teenager were to jump someone, beat them down, mount them, and commence beating their head into the ground, well, that's a lot different than what you are pretending happened (that Zimmerman stalked Martin like Batman.)

"I can imagine my own son's in the same situation and for one of them I can imagine a similar outcome."

-- I'm pretty sure you've taught your sons "Don't assault strangers on the streets," so I don't see why you should worry. Sort of like "Teach your boys not to rape."

"I honestly do not understand the level of support for Zimmerman amongst the law and order crowd."

-- Zimmerman did something stupid; Martin did something stupid AND illegal. I think Zimmerman should not have did what he did. But, he was within his rights to walk a public street, much like Martin was. He was also in his rights to use a legal weapon in legal self-defense, which is what it was if the facts are as they appear.

"Having armed vigilantes patrolling the streets and shooting teenage boys is definitely not my concept of law and order."

-- And that is not what happened here.

Reasonable Man: Be honest, because very often when I ask you this, you admit to not knowing the details of the specific situation: How closely have you followed the case, how well do you know the confirmed facts around the case?

For example: Are you aware of the injuries Zimmerman sustained compared with those Martin did? Have you read the eyewitness testimony that was released and that the state has been called to task for illegally withholding information and evidence from the defense? I honestly feel like you're still operating on the first week of information about the case, where it was actually very likely that Zimmerman was the aggressor (early reports said Martin was shot from above, that Zimmerman had no injuries, and that there were confirmed reports of Zimmerman being the one on top -- all have been disproven since then.)

AReasonableMan said...Matthew, in a day or two you should reread your posts. You are hysterical and way too over-invested in Martin's guilt to think clearly. Take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard.

It's understandably infuriating trying to have a discussion with a sordid, unprincipled, mentally disabled bag of shit like you. Answer his question regarding "how raped", or by default admit that you're a thread-shitting troll with absolutely no interest in sane, adult, rational debate.

I wonder if the Professor feels sick when she notices your antics. Somehow, I think she does.

Bruce Hayden - unrelated: "Arguably OJ was tried in LA instead of Brentwood, where he lived"

Brentwood is a neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles. There are lots of neighborhoods of LA which people say they're from to avoid admitting to themselves they live in LA. Anyone who is in "Hollywood" or "Northridge" or "Woodland Hills" or "Sherman Oaks" or "Westwood" or "Chatsworth" is inside the City of Los Angeles, but can't face up to the ignominy.

Zimmerman was the bigger stronger man, he was armed, he believed himself to be in a position of authority.

I think that you need to define "bigger", and the stronger is in much debate. Martin was maybe 2-4 inches taller than Zimmerman. The debate over the weight difference rages on. I have heard as low as 10 and as great as 50, with a lower figure making more sense to me. But, what also must be kept in mind is that Martin was 17, probably near his full height, but still filling out. Zimmerman was over 30, and even in the pictures of him at the time, looked a bit pudgy. Remember, you lose 1% or so a year of muscle mass after about 20. I am between the two of them in height, and heavier than either was at the time of the incident, yet, probably weaker than either, at least in upper body strength. Martin had reach and youth on his side, along with probably practicing fighting a lot more, given his online statements. Ten years earlier, I think it might have been an even fight. Or at least more even.

Wasn't he tried in central LA though? I remember a talk on a flight shortly after that with a guy who was a good friend of the DA. He said that they changed the trial from Brentwood to a court with a large black jury pool after the DA met with local Black leaders, who had told him that LA would burn if OJ was convicted by a white jury in Brentwood. And, once the trial location was switched, that he (the DA) knew it was lost. That was why they used the two prosecutors that they used - one black, one female. They were apparently not his top prosecutors for capital cases, and that was the only thing that they thought might win the case for them. Turns out though that OJ had the better Black attorney, and sympathy for the woman by the female jurors never overcame their jaundiced view of the LAPD.

Icepick wrote:I also think Martin was acting in self-defense. He had a stranger following him, and he had no reason to assume Zimmerman was an upstanding citizen looking to help keep the neighborhood safe versus being some sort of danger.

Wrong on two counts. One, Zimmerman wasn't following him when he apparently doubled back and confronted him. The phone conversation shows that while there were a few seconds Zimmmerman may have followed him, he had lost sight of Trayvon and was talking with the cops about how he disappeared and where to meet the cops when they came to his community.Second, and this is a biggie. Trayvon didn't live in the gated community. Neither did his dad. He was, for all intents and purposes a stranger there. Yes, he was there legitimately, but that doesn't mean that people in the community shouldn't view him with suspicion if they see him lurking about. Because, again, he is not a member of the community.What should have happened was, Trayvon's fathers gf should have told the community that Trayvon will be staying there and further, show a picture of Trayvon to the people in the neighborhood watch.Second, Trayvon should have gone up to Zimmerman and explained that he was staying with his dad and that he was in apt. so and so with his gf who lived there.Instead he took offense that he was being viewed with suspicion and went back to confront Zimmerman.

A ReasonableMan made the following stupid argument:I honestly do not understand the level of support for Zimmerman amongst the law and order crowd. Having armed vigilantes patrolling the streets and shooting teenage boys is definitely not my concept of law and order.I question your reasonableness as well as your honesty since you persist in arguing a narrative that has no basis in reality. And I suppose you think Trayvon looked like he did in that first picture we saw of him as an 11 year old.For the record. Zimmmerman wasn't a vigilante. He didn't stalk Trayvon. All evidence shows that Trayvon in fact doubled back and started the fight with Zimmerman. eyewitness accounts show that it was Trayvon that was beatin the shit out of Zimmerman MMA style and that it was Zimmerman calling for help. So, if you cling to your bullshit narrative, then I suppose you might genuinely have trouble understanding why we would defend Zimmerman. But that's because you're clinging to the bullshit narrative.

"Let's imagine a thought experiment. We place a 1,000 different men in the same situation as Zimmerman. Identical night, they are armed and safely driving along in their car when they first spot Martin.

"Out of that 1,000 men how many do you think end up shooting Martin dead? My guess, only one, Zimmerman.

This is the basis for the trial and this is why he should be convicted of manslaughter. "

Lets take those 1000 men. How many of them do you think would view Trayvon suspiciously, considering he didn't actually live in that community? My guess? 1000. And if Trayvon doubled back and punched all 1000 of those men in the face, then got on top 1000 of them and started pounding their face into the pavement, and if those 1000 all had a concealed weapon (which they were licensed to carry) how many do I think would respond similarly? Probably close to 1000.See, having your face beaten into the pavement MMA is the exact circumstance when you would do things to defend your life.

Much of the frisson in this particular case comes down to a clash of visions over what a civil society should look like. My vision of a civil society does not include armed vigilantes like Zimmerman.

I have largely given up on arguing the specifics of the case but I am constantly surprised by the credulity that is ceded to Zimmerman, a man with a record, who unequivocally lied to the court and whose account on the night in question was not accepted by the police on duty. I view this as deliberate naivety. Any 'fact' based on Zimmerman's testimony is probably not a fact.

Bruce Hayden said...Zimmerman was the bigger stronger man, he was armed, he believed himself to be in a position of authority.

I think that you need to define "bigger", and the stronger is in much debate.========================Black racists and self-loathing white leftists try to make a big deal about that, to go along with other false parts of their narrative like the angelic child photos, the skittles, the idea that a thug using fists is "unarmed and harmless".

But weight does not translate into strength, power, leverage in a fight. Thomas "Hitman" Hearnes in his prime was 6'1" and weighed 154 lbs...much less than "Trayvon the Angel Victim".

If you want to see some entertaining testimony, check out George Doddington's questioning by the defense. Doddington is a genuine expert in my field of automatic speech recogntion, and also knows of what he speaks when it comes to determining statistical significance and designing repeatable experiments and methodology in the field. He's a real scientist. His contempt for the prosecution experts' pseudo science is palpable.

Because of his (well-founded) arrogance, George (I've met him at few conference, and he's no more congenial there) probably would have made a bad witness in this dumbed-down age, but I bet he made a strong impression on the Judge. And, she made the right call to keep this garbage out of the courtroom.